Average attendance is 5,768. In the ISL, which sits outside the football pyramid, average attendance is 26,741.
Of course they're 'new' to the Premier League! Were they in the Premier League last year? No, therefore they are 'new' or are you seriously suggesting that 20 'brand' new clubs are created every season and the 20 already in the Premier League are basically 'thrown out'? I don't get it, the fact that there are so many clubs with the resources to play in the top league in such a small country is testament to the system, I'm not sure why you can't see this? Brighton have spent a total of 4 years in top flight English football, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Premier League is a new experience for the thousands of excited fans that will fill the Amex next season, Huddersfield last spent a year in the top flight in 1972! Newcastle are back to where (their fans) feel they belong but guess what.......3 teams will fall out the top league at the end of next season destined perhaps not to return in 1, 5, 10, 15, 40, 100 years - exciting innit.
It's not terribly fair, or even rational, to argue that the teams in the Combination and the Alliance weren't fully professional up to current posters' lofty standards. Poor Sunderland were kicked out of the FA Cup in 1887 for the sin of paying Scottish players. It would be a terrible shame for Sunderland to suffer the penalty of too-soon professionalism, only to be callously dismissed 130 years later as amateurs by a soccer yapfest. The Combination was the second pro soccer league in the world, and the Alliance was the third. The obstacles weren't that there weren't enough teams to go around, but getting those teams to stick to the schedule. Even today the Premiership makes room for the FA Cup, one can only imagine how much more important the FA Cup was that the fledgling league. (WBA was spared relegation after they won it in 1892.) The leagues weren't the slick operations they are today, but the pro clubs at the time were, after all, considered pro clubs at the time. Huge arguments were made about it. I think it's undignified to pretend we know more about those clubs than they did at the time. It would also be interesting to compare the accounts of clubs before the FA officially legalized professionalism, with our so-called amateur college teams today.
Where did anyone suggest that 20 new teams needed to be created? The argument is clearly that for all the thousands of clubs that exist in these football pyramids, only a very small percentage reaches the top flight and an even smaller percentage rise to compete for the actual title - even out of those that have participated in the top league. Remember that the context is US soccer. Other nations and leagues are only mentioned and critiqued as a comparison, in relation to the topic of promotion and relegation in the USA. Nobody is suggesting or advocating that we close off the EPL from the rest of the nation or that we dispense with non-elite teams. As an example, for me personally, I have a local top flight club in Los Angeles and I enjoy the fact that we go into each season with a clean slate: where title contention is desired/expected but not guaranteed. I have no personal need for a Huntington Beach FC to support. I see no modern need for a league to comprise thousands of clubs. I would much rather my team goes into each season with the possibility that a good one will bring honours, than watch it toil for years in the lower divisions, for the "payoff" of merely being present in a division with dominant "big teams" that my club will never compete with. Well never, barring a gargantuan upset or "getting lucky" by being bought out by a bored billionaire.
Newcastle certainly isn't. Though, this was about the # of clubs in the top flight ... so nice attempt at a goalpost movement here. I can't fathom how you conjured this up. Well that's just it ... there aren't "so many" clubs with the resources to play in the top league. In fact, the only reason some clubs get in is due to only having to meet ONE factor (results on the field). If you stepped back and looked at the actuality of what "resources" are, you'd see that there aren't "so many" with them to be EPL clubs. And? They've been there before .... so thanks for stating my point again? Exciting? No, I honestly don't really care outside of the singular event of the season. Did I have some interest in whom got relegated this year? Fleetingly sure ... but what's exciting about a club being doomed to relegation for a month or six weeks? Did I have an interest in who is coming up? Slightly yes, but the only reason I'll give any shits at all about Huddersfield is because of Wagner. I don't give a single solitary crap about B/H though.
It depends on which league you're talking about. If you're referring to the Indian Super League, which is supposedly replacing the I-League as the top division at some point soon, then it doesn't have pro/rel. If you're referring to the I-League, then pro/rel isn't as much of a problem in the US because its clubs have long histories and tend to keep more of their fans when relegated. (And most of the second division clubs have decades of history and a lot more resources than any US lower league club had in 1996.) Also, as much as India has an analogous problem to the US, it has four times the population in a third of the land area. Even then, a lot of I-League and I-League Second Division clubs have folded. Pro/rel is especially problematic when clubs are formed to populate a new top division with a lot more resources than anything that existed in the country before. That's why I don't see the Indian Super League becoming part of India's pro/rel pyramid any time soon.
Indeed, it's amazing. Next year's Premier League will feature three teams - Bournmouth, Burnley and Brighton that came extremely close to being relegated into the Conference and then clawed their way back up the pyramid. Additionally, Huddersfield Town and Swansea City have also played at the fourth level in the last 40 years. Meanwhile two past winners of the European Cup, along with two other teams that have played in a European final, will play at the second level.
Chicago Red Stars, Boston Breakers and Sky Blue FC for sure. A bunch of Philippine teams jumped from the old D1 to the new D1. I think there's a rhubarb over one of the holdover teams in India. ....oh, and the Sounders, Earthquakes, Timbers and Whitecaps (rolling eyes keep rolling)
This EXACTLY, and yet we are supposed to believe that the league never changes, like I've repeatedly said things have, do & will change over time, to suggest that a club from non-league becomes Premier League pedigree in a couple of years is ridiculous! It wouldn't say much about the quality of the Premier League if it was like that. The point is football is a journey, not something to be 'ripped up' and started again every year. If you think being a European champion makes you immune to Championship football then think again, ask Forest or Villa, if you think that being league 2 minnows is as good as it is ever going to get then think again, ask Bournemouth or Swansea, Burnley or Brighton, or Carlisle for that matter.
How would a club climbing the leagues BELOW the EPL in a few years be detrimental to the quality of the EPL? What do those leagues have to do with the EPL's quality? And yet, for leagues with promotion and relegation that is exactly what happens. "New" clubs in the league and other clubs "kicked out" due to a singular set of results.
It's not 1981. England football used to have one of the most competitive leagues in the world. TV and Champions League money changed that to the point where becoming consistent contenders organically, is exceedingly difficult - especially if you're a smaller club that recently came up through the divisions. Whichever way you slice it, in the last 25 years there have been just 6 champions, with 84% of the titles being shared between three clubs. Which is probably why nobody is suggesting that. Well that depends. It might say something about the strength of the other divisions. It doesn't of course because there's no way - purely through revenues generated by a club itself - a team can spend much time outside the EPL and maintain the type of squad that could compete for the title upon promotion. https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...astle-united-hull-city-championship-parachute How many more times? Attendances show that many fans step away as the team struggles and drops down divisions. Interest also wanes when a team is struggling against relegation or sometimes when they're just slipping into mediocrity. Are you suggesting that this is what happens in US leagues? Did you just forget my prior examples of clubs like the Galaxy, Real Salt Lake, Seattle and San Jose/Houston retaining a nucleus of the same players for several years. Steve Curry, Draymond Green and Klay Thompson have all been with the Golden State Warriors in the NBA for several years. Are you suggesting that this doesn't happen in pro/rel leagues? Managerial stints are notoriously short these days and new managers frequently overhaul not just their squads, but the entire coaching staff. And that's not even restricted to the worst teams. Big clubs will 'can' managers for not meeting expectations and that can mean finishing 2nd or 3rd in a season. Real Madrid sacked Fabio Capello because he won the league with tactics that were considered too conservative! How often does a promoted club stick with just the same players that got them promoted? How often can they retain their strongest players after relegation? Now truly bad teams in closed, parity-measured leagues might "rip it up", but that's entirely because their teams are crap and it's necessary to improve. In that case, it's actually a good thing and means that just because they were bad last season, it doesn't mean they won't be able to turn themselves into a strong team this year. Most modern football leagues lack that dynamic. I'll now guide you to look away from England to the rest of Europe. Do you realise that most nations have at least one team that has won at least 10 titles and many among those have won at least 20? Of the other top four leagues in the UEFA coefficient, Spain, Germany and Italy all have at least one team that has won well over a third of their titles since their current leagues began. Portugal has had three teams win all but two of their titles ever. Things at the very top don't change anywhere near as much as you think and while I agree that England used to be far more competitive, those days are over. Indeed, without the billionaire hobbyists bankrolling Chelsea and Citeh, it probably wouldn't be as competitive as it is.
So it's not a journey for a club because not all fans are on board for all legs of it? That's weird logic. The CL places certainly seem to have been cemented, mainly by CL revenues. As you say, only $$$ from outside will allow a team to break into that particular "elite". Otoh, the rest of the pyramid below the CL spots seems as upwardly (and downwardly) mobile as it ever was.
I'll concede that for the clubs its a journey. The journey isn't much of a selling point though, if barring the odd crunch game, the down spells see fans drop off, especially when those down spells result in slipping down the divisions. I thought we'd already established that more teams go down within one or two seasons than ever before. In the last decade of the old First Division, there were almost as many individual promotees as in 25 years of Premier League history. If you look at the last 25 years of the old First Division, that number grows to about 40. While I agree that the UCL has had an impact at the top of the table, as we discussed previously, it's far from the only factor and as this dynamic doesn't appear to be cementing top- threes and fours in other nations, I'd question how much it's truly at play here.
If most Premier League clubs were in the top division one minute and League 2 the next then it wouldn't reflect positively on the quality of the EPL, cant you see this??
Of course attendances 'drop off', playing Carlisle United isn't going to have the same 'pull' as playing Manchester United, its not rocket science. Some clubs have bigger support than others, and the clubs 'level' of support depends on other things as well as what division they're in. Manchester City pull in more fans in League 2 than Bournemouth do in the Premier League, both clubs pull in more fans in the Premier League than they do in League 2. Incidentally the 'Average' top flight league attendance in 1981 when you claim English football was so much more 'competitive' (despite the complete domination of Liverpool) was around 20,000. when Spurs and Chelsea enlarge their stadiums the 'average' attendance will be around 40,000 (it would be more if stadiums were bigger too). Like I said there are many reasons why attendances are where they are or will be in the future for any football club.
As a supporter of a team that has had many relegations and promotions, I consider this part of the "rich tapestry of life". My support has been unwavering regardless of the division we've been playing in. Pro/rel is absolutely a selling point for me. Given you follow one of the gloryhunter clubs that are effectively immune from pro/rel, I can see that your mileage may vary. 48 different teams (including Brighton and Huddersfield) have played in the Premier League since its formation. In the last 50 years 55 teams have played at the top level. By my count six of those - Bournmouth, Portsmouth, Bradford, Cardiff, Barnsley and Wigan - played only at the top level in the Premier League, not the Football League. So that would make 48 during 25 years of the Premier League, 49 during the last 25 years of the Football League. One factor could be that English CL revenues on average are higher than all or nearly all every other league.
As you know that had to do with a myriad of reasons that were unrelated to competitiveness. 9 teams won the league in the 15 years after the war and crowds were huge. 5 teams won the league between 1975 and 1990 when stadiums were half empty (at least when Notts were playing there).
Why is it impossible for you to directly answer a question? Which team is that again? He's explained more than once, his reasons for being a fan of said club. Your blatant disrespect for that is nothing but trolling and a perfect example of the posting you like to "call out" others on in this thread. Either admit your the pot calling the kettle black, or stfu and take yours too. Oh, you missed this the first time .... see, I already did this: How many clubs have played in the top league of English football? 65 How many clubs have played in the Premier league? 49 How many clubs have played in the Premier league in the last eleven years (BH/Hudd included)? 37 There is a CLEAR declination angle there.
I agree on the rich tapestry comment. In what way does inaccurate speculation about my support of a club, facilitate the discussion you say you want? Or foster the environment you claim to want? If there were around 40 individual promotees to D1 in the 25 years before the EPL, but only 49 teams played in the top flight, that would mean that some of those promitees had been relegated from D1 during that period. This, coupled with fewer number of teams being relegated within 2 years suggests that FLD1 was more competitive. Glancing at some of the final league tables of the period, supports that. Are you suggesting that the quantities earned by other UCL clubs wouldn't have the effect you claim within their leagues? https://www.google.com/amp/s/syndication.bleacherreport.com/amp/2638065.amp.html
I think soccer in the us is at a point where the ussf should start looking at pro-rel and have less "control" of the game. We're at a point where mid sized midwestern and southern cities are drawing huge crowds, the cities that want to be mls will invest in players at the lower division spots and make it to the mls. I don't see why this is a bad thing. It's basically capitalism in soccer form. "Free the market!"
Unless I have badly misremembered - and I really don't know why M is being coy about it now, except for the sake of giggles, which, okay, I understand - there is nothing inconsistent with M's position on this topic and the club he supports. Any frontrunners or gloryhunters in their fanbase have been extremely misinformed, and very few closed system models would consider inviting this club in.
There was no speculation. You do follow a gloryhunter club and said club is essentially immune from relegation, meaning your experiences supporting them are inevitably different from those that support more relegation-prone teams. I have no idea what you're claiming here by "40 individual promotees". The bottom line is that the number of teams who played in Division One 25 to 50 years ago was 49; the number of teams that have played in the Premier League since then is 48 - in other words, no change. If the Premier League were causing the same set of teams to be relegated and (re)promoted, we wouldn't see those numbers. I'm not even sure what "this" is. I agree that number of teams relegated in two years is more interesting, but not the only relevant measure. Oooh, very convincing! My general point is that English teams earn more CL money for the same level of performance than do teams from other countries. "City received more money for reaching the Champions League semi-finals than Real Madrid did for actually winning the trophy. This puzzling anomaly is down to the high value of the British TV deal, which means that English clubs can earn more than teams from other countries who progress further in the tournament." http://swissramble.blogspot.com/2016/11/uefa-champions-league-safe-european-home.html Hard to tell much of anything from a one-season snapshot, but even so I see only two leagues in that list where there are 3 teams that earned €20m+ - England and Spain. And I certainly see a cementation at the top of both those leagues. The link I posted above has some interesting five year charts - I see that four of the top twelve for revenue over that period were English teams.
That's a relief; it had been worrying me that a closed league might invite them in. Glad to hear that's apparently not the case.